Clarence Valley Council to the Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation Draft Report by the Productivity Commission

1 Submission by Clarence Valley Council to the Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation Draft Report by the Productivity Commission The Clarence Valley Council is geographically one of the largest Councils on the eastern Australian seaboard located in northern NSW with a population approaching 53,000 people. Council has the Clarence River, the largest easterly flowing river in NSW, over 70 kilometres of coastline and one third of the Council area is either national parks or state forest. This means that Council is exposed to three major risks as a result of climate change; increased flooding due to more extreme weather events; greater levels of coastal erosion and inundation due to storm events and sea level rise; and greater frequency of bushfires due to increased temperatures and greater climate variability. Council has adopted a number of strategic documents on climate change including a Climate Change Policy (which can be found on Councils website); and has considerable experience in using guidelines developed as part of the NSW Government coastal zone planning regime and the risk assessment approach under the Flood Prone Land Policy. Council has a community-based Climate Change Committee and is undertaking a risk assessment process with its insurance providers. Council also has a very good relationship with local emergency response organisations especially the Police, SES and RFS. It also has developed a good recovery process helped by key agencies including Centrelink, and at State level, Departments of Community Services and Primary Industries in particular; aided by the many splendid volunteers, especially Red Cross. Recovery Centres established after the two recent large floods in 2009 and 2011 have provided excellent support to flood victims. Flooding Risk Clarence Valley Council, a 2004 amalgamation of four former general purpose and two county councils, has a long history of managing flood risk. Flooding patterns combined with the early use of the river for transport explain much of the geographic settlement of the Clarence Valley. Due to the many floods the Clarence Valley Council, aided by NSW State and Commonwealth Governments, has developed a comprehensive response to flood risk. Many of the responses are due to the history of the Clarence as a series of river ports. The City of Grafton and the three smaller towns of Maclean, Yamba and Iluka were all located and developed in flood prone areas as were smaller villages adjacent to the river. Grafton, Ulmarra and Maclean have flood protection levees. The Clarence Valley Flood Strategy is multifaceted and has involved a long history of strategic flood risk planning, flood levee construction, house purchases and house raising in high risk areas, guided by the NSW Floodplain Manual. These activities, in combination, have meant that the Clarence Valley has been able to withstand three major floods in recent years compared for example to recent flooding in South East Queensland. There is no doubt that this multifaceted strategic approach has reduced flood risk in the Clarence Valley, and dramatically reduced household and business insurance claims. Road infrastructure damage constitutes the principal areas of Clarence Valley claims under National Natural Disaster relief provisions. It is Council’s view that funding support to ‘flood proof’ roads, in addition to flood damage repairs, would reduce future flood damage claims and liabilities. 2 Clarence Valley Council makes a number of observations in relation to the Draft Report and these are highlighted. Observation 1 - The Productivity Commission should explore the option of funding to not only flood damage repair costs, but should encourage and support Councils to ‘flood proof’ as much as feasible against future damage implementing the concept of ‘betterment’. Council is currently modelling the effects of climate change on flooding regularity and intensity to adapt strategic planning to better address flooding impacts. Council, with a population growth of around one per cent per annum, has also taken a precautionary approach to approving new developments to better accommodate flooding and climate change impacts. For example, a new 1,100 lot subdivision at Yamba requires filling of up to one metre to address traditional flooding and predicted additional climate change impacts. Coastal Erosion and Inundation Risk Clarence Valley Council has responsibility for 70 kilometres of coastline and two of the NSW State classified ‘hotspots’ under the Coastal Protection Act 1979, namely Wooli and Brooms Head. Furthermore, Council has a very large estuarine system in the Lower Clarence floodplain which extends from the river mouth at Yamba to over 90 kilometres up the estuary and inland well past the City of Grafton. Although Council conducts its strategic planning under the NSW State Government Coastal Protection legislative framework, affording Council some legal protection if it acts in good faith, Council as the frontline decision-maker, argues that it is substantially exposed to the ongoing risk of coastal erosion and also to a relatively unknown, although modelled effect of sea-level rise and greater storm surge. As has been the experience of Byron Shire Council, although the Coastal Protection Act provides some legislative protection to Councils, the Act does not guarantee that this protection will be supported by the Courts. Furthermore, the NSW Government has left Councils to undertake the legal challenges without funding support and these costs can run into millions of dollars. The move by the State Government (and also implied in the Draft Report by the Commission) to transfer risk to landholders might seem appropriate to policy makers removed from the coastal frontline. However, with the exception of some cities such as the Gold Coast, the cost to landholders to undertake the required environmental studies, and implement protective works, is unrealistic and excessive for many, especially those residing in smaller coastal towns and villages. If the Commission was agreeable, Clarence Valley Council in association with the Wooli Coastal Protection Alliance could talk to the Commission about the major coastal erosion problem at Wooli, where over 40 houses are at immediate risk of coastal erosion and hundreds within the next 50 years. Preliminary costs for major protection works here are in excess of $30 million. Observation 2 - Council agrees with the Commission that Local Government is ill-equipped with the resources - financial, staff, and legal to address these complex problems. Furthermore, NSW State legislation is constantly changing as is the science, making it for Councils to develop coherent, effective policy, in an increasingly sceptical community. 3 Observation 3 - At present, there is no apparent genuine commitment by State and Commonwealth Governments to financially assist Councils with the high resource level task of adaptation to climate change impacts. Fortunately, in the flood prone localities of the Clarence Valley there has been a well coordinated and funded adaptation package over time where Councils have shared adaptation costs with the higher tiers of government. Unfortunately however, in recent years Commonwealth funding support in this regard has reduced. Inevitably, resources for adaptation to climate change will need to be substantially increased. The recent flood emergencies across eastern Australia highlight that the cost of not being prepared and we are all paying such cost through the special flood levy. Bushfire Risk Council has 6 towns and villages which adjoin national parks and are vulnerable to bushfire damage. In cooperation with the Rural Fire Service (RFS) Council has developed emergency plans for all these localities which rely on a combination of asset protection zones and personal safety bushfire plans. Similarly, Council in terms of its statutory planning responsibilities is conscious of the impacts of bushfire risk and of the dangers of allowing new dwelling construction in high fire risk areas, especially in the rural and rural residential zones. With advice from the RFS, Council takes a proactive in ensuring that new dwelling houses are not put at risk. This causes some community tension especially in rural areas. Observation 4 - The impact of climate change on increased bushfire risk in the Clarence Valley is in scientific terms, probably for Council the least understood risk. Given that Council has responsibility for large rural areas surrounded by national parks and state forests, a two degree temperature increase, as now predicted, could have far reaching effects in the Clarence Valley. 4 Clarence Valley Council Specific Responses to the Draft Productivity Commission Report Recommendations Draft Recommendation 4.1 A logical response would be to prioritise low up-front cost for more substantial benefits. This would not be applicable however, for a Council faced with immediate high cost risks, accentuated by climate change, for example coastal erosion ‘hotpots’. Already it can be argued that many NSW coastal ‘hotspots’ are ‘over studied’ and provide some rationale to defer expensive solutions. Furthermore, some studies disguise inadequate policy development and funding at the State and Federal levels. It is inevitable that some of the high cost coastal protection works will need to be funded, to prevent irreparable damage to homes and critical public infrastructure. Draft Recommendation 6.1 Council agrees this is a vital role for the Commonwealth Government and

Load more